Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <>,
> Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz wrote:
>
>> I was hoping someone woul;d know a readily available program that
>> would give me the answer, as I'm not a programmer.
>
> Hire a programmer, then.
>
If the OP wants a windows executable to do the job, post again here and
I'll make one for free and upload it.
It will take little time to do, yet be more productive than Larry D'O's
entire career on usenet.

Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz wrote:
> Me <>::
>
>> If the OP wants a windows executable to do the job, post again here and
>> I'll make one for free and upload it.
>
> Thank you for your offer, which I accept.
>
> You could attach the executable to an email to
>
>
>
> I'm primarily interested in counting black pixels, but can you
> will make provision for counting any color?
>
Just emailed it to you, exe file in a zip, about 215kb.
Very basic rough & ready, but works okay. To use, open a bitmap file by
clicking "Open bmp file..." button.
(not sure how you wanted to do it, but loading image as bitmap was
simplest, so you might need to save your image as a bitmap first)
Default colour of pixels to count is black, result displayed when file
loaded.
Click anywhere on displayed bitmap image to select a different colour to
"count pixels", and show result.

Me wrote:
> Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz wrote:
>> Me <>::
>>
>>> If the OP wants a windows executable to do the job, post again here
>>> and I'll make one for free and upload it.
>>
>> Thank you for your offer, which I accept.
>>
>> You could attach the executable to an email to
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm primarily interested in counting black pixels, but can you
>> will make provision for counting any color?
>>
> Just emailed it to you, exe file in a zip, about 215kb.
> Very basic rough & ready, but works okay. To use, open a bitmap file by
> clicking "Open bmp file..." button.
> (not sure how you wanted to do it, but loading image as bitmap was
> simplest, so you might need to save your image as a bitmap first)
> Default colour of pixels to count is black, result displayed when file
> loaded.
> Click anywhere on displayed bitmap image to select a different colour to
> "count pixels", and show result.

Your email bounced the attached zip file. Have uploaded to server and
sent you a link to download it.
Cheers.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <>,
> Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz wrote:
>
>> Thank you for your offer, which I accept.
>>
>> You could attach the executable to an email to
>
> Ah, the old accept-executables-from-dubious-sources-on-the-Internet trick.
> Works every time.
>
I've supplied my real email address to him, as well as the URL to my
site that I've uploaded the file to, so do you still really think that
I'd send malware/trojan/virus infected code?

The only malicious thing in this thread so far has been your presence.
And no, I didn't use your code. If the OP wants my code to compile it
himself, he's welcome. You're not.

Using a word processor a test text was displayed in an otherwise
blank page, re-formatted in each type face, then a ‘Print Screen' dump
pasted into an image editor. Each pasted image was then cropped and
saved.

Black pixels were counted with PixelCounter.exe.

By adopting one value as the benchmark, and dividing all the
pixel values by the benchmark value, the process provides a direct
comparison of the relative density of black text in the test fonts.

This information is one element of making rational choices about
which type faces are more likely to be most legible in web pages.

Me, could you now sent a message to as to you
intentions about copywrite, permission to share the executable with
third parties, etc. It would be helpful also if I could give credit to
a real person rather than a non-de-plume.

Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz wrote:
> Attention Me.
>
> Your program achieved exactly the result I needed.
>
> Using a word processor a test text was displayed in an otherwise
> blank page, re-formatted in each type face, then a ‘Print Screen' dump
> pasted into an image editor. Each pasted image was then cropped and
> saved.
>
> Black pixels were counted with PixelCounter.exe.
>
> By adopting one value as the benchmark, and dividing all the
> pixel values by the benchmark value, the process provides a direct
> comparison of the relative density of black text in the test fonts.
>
> This information is one element of making rational choices about
> which type faces are more likely to be most legible in web pages.
>
> Me, could you now sent a message to as to you
> intentions about copywrite, permission to share the executable with
> third parties, etc. It would be helpful also if I could give credit to
> a real person rather than a non-de-plume.
>
> Tks again for facilitating this simple piece of research.

Glad it worked!
As I said I'd do it for free, it's free, so I don't need credit, use and
distribute freely "as-is" without restriction.
It took a few minutes only to write and compile using a shareware
version of Delphi - a good old program for that sort of thing.

In message <hfi4ic$b8$>, Me wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <>,
>> Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for your offer, which I accept.
>>>
>>> You could attach the executable to an email to
>>
>> Ah, the old accept-executables-from-dubious-sources-on-the-Internet
>> trick. Works every time.
>
> The only malicious thing in this thread so far has been your presence.

Interesting that I didnâ€™t use the word â€œmaliciousâ€, yet you immediately
jumped to that conclusion. Says something about your thought processes,
doesnâ€™t it?

On Dec 8, 12:13 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <81e661f2-61e8-4679-
>
> >, JohnO wrote:
> > You really are a waste of space, Larry.
>
> When have you actually contributed anything of value to nz.comp? It seems to
> me the sum total of your postings is sniping at the comments of others. Do
> you actually have any computer knowledge at all?

You seem to confuse not posting steaming mountains of crap with a lack
of computer knowledge.

JohnO wrote:
> On Dec 8, 12:13 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message <81e661f2-61e8-4679-
>>
>> >, JohnO wrote:
>>> You really are a waste of space, Larry.
>> When have you actually contributed anything of value to nz.comp? It seems to
>> me the sum total of your postings is sniping at the comments of others. Do
>> you actually have any computer knowledge at all?
>
> You seem to confuse not posting steaming mountains of crap with a lack
> of computer knowledge.
>
> You need to get out more, Larry.

I'm curious as well, I would have to say my observations correlate with
what Lawrence has said.

Also, in nz.general, you claimed that a lack of postings on a point
proved that point.

Sailor Sam wrote:
> JohnO wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 12:13 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>> In message <81e661f2-61e8-4679-
>>>
>>> >, JohnO wrote:
>>>> You really are a waste of space, Larry.
>>> When have you actually contributed anything of value to nz.comp? It
>>> seems to
>>> me the sum total of your postings is sniping at the comments of
>>> others. Do
>>> you actually have any computer knowledge at all?
>>
>> You seem to confuse not posting steaming mountains of crap with a lack
>> of computer knowledge.
>>
>> You need to get out more, Larry.
>
> I'm curious as well, I would have to say my observations correlate with
> what Lawrence has said.
>
> Also, in nz.general, you claimed that a lack of postings on a point
> proved that point.
>
> /me shrugs, which was is it?

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!